After covering Denis Villeneuve's Dune Part
2 in multiple videos and hearing what others have had to say about the film, it's quite
clear that the director has made a film that like the first, respectfully honours the source
material, especially when it comes to the central themes and purpose of Frank Herbert's
novel. But having read the book and watching the
film multiple times, there are a few big differences that were made. So in this video, I'm going to be looking
at the biggest differences between the Dune Part 2 movie and Frank Herbert's novel, giving
us a greater understanding of why Denis made these choices in his adaptation and giving
you my own thoughts towards them. Before I get into it though, if you want to
keep up to date on any of my future content on Dune Part 2, then don't forget to support
this upload by giving it a like rating, subscribing to the channel and turning on your notifications. But without further a do, lets dive into the
biggest differences between Dune Part 2 and the book. So we all know that books are books, and films
are films, and changes must be made when transitioning between the two mediums to make a more streamlined
and cinematic telling of a story on the big screen. There is an argument to be made that Dune
can be told in full in other mediums like TV, and while I won't deny that there's a
case in that, I think there's also the case that Dune is part a story that can work on
a visceral and cinematic level. You feel connected in that way when you read
it, and this was the dream of director Denis Villeneuve when he set out to adapt it. To bring the dream of Dune to life on the
big screen, and visually tell that story as best as he could. In my opinion, I think he made one of the
most faithful recreations of Herbert’s vision by honouring the core themes that Herbert
wanted audiences to understand with his original novel. And the big one was the questioning of charismatic
leaders, an idea that didn't fully get across at first, meaning that he wrote a second book
in Dune Messiah to make his true intensions clear. And the reason I bring this up is because
when it ultimately comes down to it, Denis made most of the changes he did to keep the
film as streamlined as possible for all audiences and so that the viewer could focus on that
crucial critique of messiahs. And again, with Dune being such a hard novel
to adapt, I think as a whole, this is a great adaptation of that material. Maybe in Dune Messiah, we'll see some of things
that weren't in part 2 adapted in a big way. Choices are made and changes are implemented,
with some seeming small and others being more significant. So here are some of the most striking differences
between the new Dune movie and the book, and what I think towards each of them. Starting with a change I did like, there was
a big difference in Paul's sister, Alia Atreides. In my opinion, the alteration made to Paul's
sister effectively maintains the character's strangeness and sense of power from the original
novel. In the book, Alia is introduced as a character
who possesses advanced communication skills from birth and plays a pivotal role in the
climax by eliminating Paul's grandfather, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Villeneuve manages to preserve the eerie essence
of Alia's character in his adaptation, as she can still communicate like an adult without
being born. And with the film suggesting the future developments
surrouding her character too, it gives us a hint that a lot more is to come. Paul has visions of his unborn sister being
much older, portrayed by Anya Taylor Joy, and she reveals family secrets and expresses
her affection for him while overlooking vast oceans of a water on a future Arrakis. This tells us that Alia is going to be important
come Messiah and it didn't mean that the character had to be completely removed, just done in
a slightly different way to make that work in a modern cinematic telling. This alteration seems to have been driven
by various factors, such as the intention to present a more serious portrayal of the
character compared to a silly one we got in a previous adaptation. And by making this change, it becomes easier
to convey her strength, maintain her strangeness, and foreshadow her significant role in the
future. But the change to Alia also meant there had
to be alterations in different aspects of the film as well. In the book, Alia killed Baron Harkonnen,
whereas in the film, it was Paul who was given that role towards the end. In the book, Paul envisions a future where
he says "Hello Grandfather" to the Baron. So even with it changing things, it was still
faithful enough to other ideas of the book, and I must admit, I thought it was satisfying
seeing Paul kill him in front of everyone. It also resolves the issue of how to film
a 3-year-old with adult awareness murdering her grandfather, and making that look authentic
in this world. Instead they gave Paul the personal vengeance
and in the context of his revenge and the story, I thought it was delivered on quite
well. Alia being unborn also meant that the conclusion
of the story would unfold over a shorter period of time. And by condensing the time skip from 2 years
to about 8 months, it meant that Paul and Chani's first child, Leto II was never born. Now initially, I didn't like the removal of
this because when it came to that character's death, it provided more fuel for that final
act of revenge in the battle. However, with baby Leto not having many scenes
in the book, the fact that Paul and Chani will have another child named Leto II and
the replacement of that moment in the film, I think was still handled reasonably well. In the movie, their child's death is replaced
by the attack on sietch tabr and the north, and it happens a bit earlier on. In the source meaterial, baby Leto's death
is right before the final battle, whereas the attack in the film takes place before
Paul takes the water of life. So in a way they used this attack to give
greater purpose towards Paul deciding to take the water. And then when he takes the water and sees
that narrow way through, he decides to embark on that path, thus going into battle. In my opinion, the time jump would have messed
with the flow of the movie and with baby Leto not being there, I think it adds to the idea
of Chani’s inability to give Paul an heir in Dune Messiah a little extra weight. I am aware that some didn't like this alteration,
as they desired a more natural portrayal of the events as depicted in the book. For me, I thought the time jump was executed
quite well and I think changes had to be made to ensure better pacing and a more organic
representation of the novel's conclusion. Another change that many have been debating
over is the removal of Count Fenring. Now it was kind of odd considering Margot
Fenring was in the film and many reports stated that Tim Blake Nelson had filmed a scene as
the character, before he was removed from the final cut. For more reasons than not, I was fine with
the removal of Fenring from Part 2, because again, to make the film more streamlined and
focus on other citical narrative points and characters, it was an understandable decision. Count Fenring was a unique character in Dune,
being immune to the effects of spice-boosted prescience. However, when it comes to adapting the story
into a movie, it makes more sense to focus on Lady Fenring and leave out Count, as Villeneuve's
vision for Dune emphasizes the Bene Gesserit's schemes over other aspects of the book. So choosing Lady Fenring and going into her
character a bit more is a logical decision. Count Fenring, while less captivating on paper,
is known for defying orders to kill Paul in the final showdown with the Emperor. Having a character known for not killing Paul
could have slowed down the climatic ending of Part Two, and I think that was big reason
for his removal. Despite this though, Count Fenring's awareness
of the Bene Gesserit's plans adds an intriguing layer to the Dune narrative, even if he himself
isn't the most compelling character. In the original book, he stands out as the
only one invisible to Paul's prescience, leading some to see him as a failed version of the
Kwisatz Haderach. So essentially, he's a failed power player
who still holds a lot of knowledge. But by replacing this with more of Lady Fenring,
her development with Feyd, how the Bene Gesserit were manipulating that and then how Feyd is
presented as this potential candidate, is enough to focus on in already leangthy film. I think that aspect was done really well,
so personally, not having Count Fenring wasn't a big issue. I would have loved to have seen Tim Blake
Nelson in the role onscreen, but it's another decision that helped to make the film be more
focussed. The next difference between the film and book,
was one that think enhanced everything we saw surrounding the Fremen, and that was the
depiction of their dispute surrounding the prophesy of the Arrakis paradise. When we get to Sietch Tabr near the beginning
of the film, just like in the book we learn just how precious water is to the fremen,
but also, how for this particular adaptation, Denis has heightened the idea of internal
conflict. When Paul and his mother arrive, we learn
that the southern fremen believe that he is the prophesised Lisan Al Gaib, while the other
more northern fremen don't believe in that. Stilgar and others believe that the Lisan
Al Gaib could make the dream of Arrakis a reality, by transforming the planet with water. When they see the signs and when they see
that everything is going as the prophesies predicted, the southern fremen become more
convinced that Paul is their Lisan Al Gaib. And the Fremen from the north who don't believe,
see it all as lies and fake prophesies. The idea of the north and southern fremen
wasn't in Frank Herbert's book, and rather, certain fremen didn't agree with certain aspects
of the prophesy and Paul's introduction to them. But alligning these varying perspectives with
different groups of fremen, I think Villeneuve has done so for multiple reasons. One is to make the ending with Chani and the
Fremen scenes throughout much more dramatic, and the other is connected to delivering on
the central theme of the book, which again is the idea of having skepticism towards charismatic
leaders. So it helps fuel the main message of Dune
and it's a way to make everything much more tense and dramatic onscreen. The next changes were the main ones surrounding
both Lady Jessica and Chani. In part 2, Jessica takes on a more prominent
role while Alia is still in the womb. It is Jessica who takes the lead in advocating
for Paul to become the lisan al gaib, and her relationship with Alia is portrayed as
unsettling, adding another layer in depicting the control of the Bene Gesserit and Jessica's
loyalty to the cause. The scene where she talks to Alia about converting
the non-belivers and saying that they will start with the weaker fremen, was just one
moment that shows how you can add to a character to make them more interesting in a film and
then also tease the direction they could be going in. So I pretty much liked all of that. The only thing that I thought was a bit of
shame regarding Jessica was the removal of her tension with Gurney Halleck following
Paul's speech, as leading up to that moment in the book Gurney had believed Jessica was
the Atreides traitor, when as we know it was in fact Dr Yeuh. Maintaining this plotline may have played
into that aspect of part 2, where individual families and factions deal with inner conflicts. The southern and northern fremen was just
one example, so it may have worked well in expanding upon that thematic. But again it seems like it was decision that
was made to help the momentum and narrative focus come the end of Part 2. But overall, when it comes to Lady Jessica,
I thought the character was intriguing and everything they did surrounding her and the
Bene Gesserit worked in the context of this cinematic adaptation. When it comes to Chani, I know there's a lot
of book readers out there who aren't as happy with this, but for me, I thought it was a
welcome change that made her character arc much more interesting for Part 2. I found her character development in the first
book to be lacking. While I didn't despise it and while I do acknowledge
her growth and significance to the overall narrative, her portrayal in the movie gives
her a stronger sense of independence due to her increased skepticism. I was never completely satisfied with the
fact that Paul's love interest was mainly just that, so I appreciate her enhanced role
and thematical importance. Her strength, integrity, and determination
were admirable, and Zendaya effectively captured these qualities. Chani became a more believable character that
Paul could genuinely fall in love with, while also having her own perspectives on Fremen
beliefs. Nevertheless, the ending did take a surprising
turn, and I can see why some fans had mixed reactions to it. But I do believe Denis will figure out a way
to make her departure from Paul work by the time we reach Messiah. By setting her on this path in Part 2, he
has truly developed her character beyond just being a love interest. I do wish the film had revealed that Liet-Kynes
is her parent, as it was a significant element in the book and could have added depth to
Chani's character development. However, Denis made changes to make her more
impactful in Part 2 and effectively convey Frank Herbert's message about questioning
charismatic leaders. The ending really drives this message home,
and given my appreciation for what was done with Chani, I also enjoyed Villeneuve's approach
to the ending of the film too. It not only maintained focus on the main narrative
but it also elevated Paul's character thematically. In the novel, Paul marries Princess Irulan
for political reasons while keeping Chani as his concubine. Chani is upset by this, but Jessica tries
to comfort her by giving a speech about their roles as true wives. However, in the film, Chani takes a more active
stance and rejects Paul's upcoming holy war despite her love for him. Initially, I had doubts, but now I believe
it's fitting as it sets the stage for Messiah and alligns with the movie's tone. It would have felt insincere if we had a overly
cheerful ending with Paul and Chani embracing while his army launches their assault. The book left it ambiguous until we got to
Dune Messiah, so Denis tried to make that message more obvious to all audiences. Moving on there were a few changes that I'm
still quite mixed on, and most of these examples include both aspects that I thought were great,
but then others that I didn't like as much. One was how some of the details surrounding
the water of life sequences were captured. Now there's the obvious change in that the
water of life scenes were visually less psychadelic than as described in the book. And while I would have liked to have seen
more of that weirdness, I still found the scenes to be mostly effective in what they
were trying to communicate. The one big difference however, that I think
could have enhanced Paul and Chani was that there was no spice orgy. I think that scene in the book between Chani
and Paul solidifies their love together, and sharing their visions and seeing their child
in the future is such a beautiful moment. Its removal meant that there was less of the
display of prescience that we got in the book. I’m sure that in the next film it will be
more of a thing, especially because it’s Paul's biggest struggle. But I think having more to do with Paul's
understanding of his visions and moments like that Spice Orgy, might have deepened the effectiveness
of those Water Of Life scenes. I don’t think it was properly shown how
much of a change Paul underwent and I think they could’ve spent a bit more time on it. Something that gives us an idea of why the
Bene Gesserit are afraid to look where Paul can. Still, I understand that this was a hard thing
to pull off and that Denis aimed to streamline the later parts of the film, thus, focussing
primarily on Paul's change afterwards. Speaking of the more trippier side to Dune,
one of the other aspects that was changed from the book was the removal of the spacing
guild. In the book, the houses are represented by
a group known as the Landsraad, although the movie didn't mention them by name. However, one faction that Denis Villeneuve's
movies exclude is the spacing guild, which has a monopoly on space travel and banking
across the galaxy. This is largely due to the Guild Navigators,
individuals who have consumed a significant amount of the spice melange, granting them
limited foresight that aids in navigating through the stars. In the book, we discover that the Fremen use
spice as a bribe to prevent the spacing guild from allowing satellites over Arrakis, making
it difficult to locate the Fremen's whereabouts. The Fremen exploit this anonymity to initiate
the process of terraforming the planet in the southern region. Unfortunately, Dune Part Two does not incorporate
any of these elements. The spacing guild, particularly because they
align themselves with Paul, as he threatened to destroy the spice fields. The spacing guild not only requires spice
for interstellar navigation, but their very lives depend on it due to their addiction. This is why they bow down to Paul and how
the Fremen bring the war to the Great Houses. It felt weird that the guild wasn't there
but there were some positives to take away from this alteration. First off, only Paul has the power to control
the threat to spice, as it belongs to his family's atomics. Additionally, the idea of Paul and his family
being responsible for the threat to spice and the fate of Dune adds an intriguing twist. And ultimately, while I was anticipating the
Guild's appearance, I believe their introduction in the beginning of Dune Messiah will be a
delightful surprise for viewers, hinting at more of the strangeness in that adaptation. Coming to the final big change from the book,
one that many have again debated over, is the complete removal of Thufir Hawat. This is probabaly the one change I didn't
like as a whole, but I can understand the reasons towards why his character was removed. Thufir, a mentat serving House Atreides, was
portrayed by Stephen McKinley Henderson in Dune Part One. His fate after the Harkonnen attack remained
unknown as he doesn't appear in Part Two. So it's likely that he died much earlier on
in this adaptation. In the book, his journey was much different
though. Forced to work for the Harkonnens after House
Atreides' downfall, Thufir's loyalty is ensured through a poison in his blood with the antidote
held by the Harkonnens. Despite serving the family for years, he subtly
works to undermine them from within, by manipulating the Baron and his heir Feyd-Rautha. Thufir witnesses Paul's victory over the Emperor
and Baron Harkonnen at the end and he's thrilled to see that he's still alive. But he's also shocked to discover that Paul
is Maud'dib, the same Fremen leader that he's has been aiding the Harkonnens in fighting
against for years. The emperor gives Thufir a poisoned needle,
hoping he will use it to get close to Paul and kill him. But Thufir refuses, exposing the plan to everyone
before dying and ultimately redeems himself. This whole storyline was left out of Dune
2, probably because it was just too much to include. It's a shame because Thufir had an interesting
story, but I guess you can't have it all. I have one problem with both movies and that's
that Denis completely overlooked theexploration of the Mentats. Piter, who had a lot more depth and purpose
in the novel, was reduced to a mere henchman. And now, with Thufir, they removed the subplot
of betrayal, so we couldn't see the former Atreides mentat again. However, I did enjoy his scenes in the first
movie and would have loved to witness his final act of defiance against the Harkonnens. I think they could have used Hawat to also
give us more of those scenes between him and the Baron, and then when it came to the final
confrontation, his death may have added more to that central theme of manipulation. But again, while I didn't like the removal
of Hawat and while many would liked to have seen him, I understand that they tried to
streamline the ending and keep the focus on the integral characters. Plus I don't think we saw enough of an emotional
connection between Hawat and the Atreides in first film to make this sacrifice truly
have that weight. I do think it's a missed opportunity with
a character as interesting as Hawat but I understand the reasons for the change. The one aspect of Hawat's removal that I did
like was what I talked about in my biggest Questions video surrounding the changes to
Feyd's gladiator scene. In Herbert's story, Feyd and Hawat work together
on a plan to help Feyd succeed. However, in the movie version, the focus was
not on Hawat's involvement or the idea of switching Feyd's poisoned blade, as instead,
it focussed on Baron not poisoning the last gladiator. In my view, this change contributed to making
Feyd's victory appear more deserved to the audience, and in the following moments, it
highlighted the conflict between the Baron and Feyd in a different manner than seen in
the book. I believe this alteration was a positive one,
and while it meant there was no sign of Hawat, it focussed on the greater possibility that
Feyd could be that prophesied figure. I do think we could have had some scenes with
Hawat to really give the Baron more to do and have Thufir be that extra layer of complexity
when it comes to the opposing side. But like all the other changes, they made
these so that as a cinematic adaptation, the flow and telling of Dune was more approachable
for everyone. But that was my video discussing the main
differences between Dune Part 2 and Frank Herbert's novel. What do you think of the changes that director
Denis Villeneuve made with his adaptation of the second part and what are
some of the other differences that you picked out. Let me know your thoughts down below in the
comments section alongside your overall reaction to the film. For much more videos and news on Denis Villeneuve's
Dune universe, then subscribe to the channel and turn on your notifications. Also if you enjoyed this video remember to
leave a like rating and follow me on social media via the
links in the description. But anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed it, I've
been Cortex and as always make some noise.
